On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> With that explanation, this sounds a lot more reasonable.
Ah, good. :) Sorry, I should have mentioned up front the followup
steps I had planned and the rationale for taking this path.
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Mark Kettenis
> wrote:
> > I disagree with this diff. We should discourage the use of GNU
> > extensions in our kernel. Therefore I think std=gnu99 would give the
> > wrong signal.
>
> Can you clarify your concern? Currently we're (implicitly) compiling
>
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I disagree with this diff. We should discourage the use of GNU
> extensions in our kernel. Therefore I think std=gnu99 would give the
> wrong signal.
Can you clarify your concern? Currently we're (implicitly) compiling
with -std=gnu89, wh
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:17:35 -0700
> From: Matthew Dempsky
>
> Diff below converts the kernel to build with -std=gnu99. (For
> simplicity, I've only included amd64 for now, but I'll make the same
> change to all kernel Makefiles if this is ok.)
>
> The only incompatibility (that I'm aware o
Diff below converts the kernel to build with -std=gnu99. (For
simplicity, I've only included amd64 for now, but I'll make the same
change to all kernel Makefiles if this is ok.)
The only incompatibility (that I'm aware of) is that ISO C99's inline
semantics differ slightly from GNU C89's historic
